On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:32:13PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I don't think a policy "should" actually moves us down that road, because > > there's no actual penalty for not complying. The issue is *not* that > > maintainers don't, in general, implement this target (in fact, it's been > > around forever in the dh_make templates),
> As a counterexample, I did not implement the target in any packages I > worked on unless they actually could benefit from the > build-arch/build-indep distinction. There was simply no obvious > reason to do it, and the documentation gave no hint that it was a good > idea. The devref would be a better place to put that suggestion given > the current state of things, but to say that documenting it somewhere > would accomplish nothing seems like overstating things. I'm saying it won't accomplish enough to be a worthwhile intermediate step, and want us to get back to figuring out a roadmap that would enable us to turn on build-arch handling on the buildds this cycle. > > And if we want to provide a smooth transition instead, using something like > > Joey's proposed make-first-existing-target interface in bug #598534 (as > > discussed on debian-devel in > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00704.html) > I was about to say: without a full archive rebuild there is no > guarantee that that would actually provide a smooth transition, > either, since the build-arch targets are not well tested in isolation. > But that was misguided of me: > Assuming that the "build" target depends on "build-arch" and > "build-indep" and does nothing for itself, the most frightening > obvious case is a package that does too little in build-arch, relying > on build-indep to generate some other files (e.g., manpages) that are > needed for binary-arch. Typically binary-arch would depend on build > in that case, so while breakage of this kind is possible, I don't > imagine it would be widespread. > So I'm all for this. A test rebuild would still be comforting, of > course. Given that you seem to have argued in this same mail for providing both an intermediate dpkg-buildpackage switch, and introducing a Build-Options field that would have to be populated manually, I'm a little unclear: do you think make-first-existing-target is a sufficient solution for the buildds, or not? If you don't think it is, can you point to any problems with the implementation? > > The patch is outstanding; the make maintainer is TTBOMK currently > > unavailable for Debian work. If there's a consensus on > > debian-policy/devel/ctte that we should go the make-first-existing-target > > route, I would be more than happy to do an NMU of make to facilitate this. > Thanks much! If you'd like, I can try out the two patches from > Bug#598534 and send a comparison there. Thanks for the offer. How do you plan to try them out? Are you proposing a full-archive rebuild? > By the way, shouldn't the make package be orphaned to reflect the > current reality? Totally unrelated to the above, I would like to work > with the maintainer to see the latest upstream version of "make" > packaged in experimental, but for a while now the maintainer has been > hard to reach. I think it would be reasonable to let the MIA team know about Manoj's protracted absence (DevRef 7.4). -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
